IMPORTANT - decide whether to work on master vs. develop IMP version
Dear all (Max, Riccardo, Natalia - this might be particularly important for you)
As we approach the next release, it is *critical* that each person in the group will make a clear personal decision whether they want to work in the "develop" branch or the "master" branch (= release version) of IMP. Note that this has nothing to do with whether you are considered an IMP developer or not, it is just a technical personal decision.
The *develop* branch is where we work on developing the next release. In 6 months, this will be the next IMP. It is less stable (but should be much much more stable than it used to as the testing system improves more and more). It contains the newest IMP features and updates. Also, you enjoy the daily testing system, so you can be assured your code will be compatible with the next IMP release.
The *master* branch is the release version - it means you will be frozen with a relatively stable version of IMP, with minor bug updates from time to time, but will not get new features. All your code changes will be kept for you, and will not be easily shared with all other developers. Also, you will not enjoy the daily testing system (so you won't know if your code is stable for the next release).
Feel free to ask questions or give feedback, this decision is totally up to you. You can switch in the middle, but it might be a bit of a mess as the two branches will diverge over time.
p.s. important note: if you choose the master version, you will still be able to share your code with the world and other developers - but only using the current release. If you will want your code to work with future releases, you will have to port it.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Barak Raveh barak.raveh@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear all (Max, Riccardo, Natalia - this might be particularly important > for you) > > As we approach the next release, it is *critical* that each person in the > group will make a clear personal decision whether they want to work in the > "develop" branch or the "master" branch (= release version) of IMP. Note > that this has nothing to do with whether you are considered an IMP > developer or not, it is just a technical personal decision. > > The *develop* branch is where we work on developing the next release. In > 6 months, this will be the next IMP. It is less stable (but should be much > much more stable than it used to as the testing system improves more and > more). It contains the newest IMP features and updates. Also, you enjoy the > daily testing system, so you can be assured your code will be compatible > with the next IMP release. > > The *master* branch is the release version - it means you will be frozen > with a relatively stable version of IMP, with minor bug updates from time > to time, but will not get new features. All your code changes will be kept > for you, and will not be easily shared with all other developers. Also, you > will not enjoy the daily testing system (so you won't know if your code is > stable for the next release). > > Feel free to ask questions or give feedback, this decision is totally up > to you. You can switch in the middle, but it might be a bit of a mess as > the two branches will diverge over time. > > >
More importantly, a decision needs to be made for each module not in the main IMP repository (eg isd2, multifit2) whether they will be maintained against develop or master. That will then tie the people using the module to one or the other.
On Apr 19, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Barak Raveh barak.raveh@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear all (Max, Riccardo, Natalia - this might be particularly important for you) > > As we approach the next release, it is *critical* that each person in the group will make a clear personal decision whether they want to work in the "develop" branch or the "master" branch (= release version) of IMP. Note that this has nothing to do with whether you are considered an IMP developer or not, it is just a technical personal decision. > > The develop branch is where we work on developing the next release. In 6 months, this will be the next IMP. It is less stable (but should be much much more stable than it used to as the testing system improves more and more). It contains the newest IMP features and updates. Also, you enjoy the daily testing system, so you can be assured your code will be compatible with the next IMP release. > > The master branch is the release version - it means you will be frozen with a relatively stable version of IMP, with minor bug updates from time to time, but will not get new features. All your code changes will be kept for you, and will not be easily shared with all other developers. Also, you will not enjoy the daily testing system (so you won't know if your code is stable for the next release). > > Feel free to ask questions or give feedback, this decision is totally up to you. You can switch in the middle, but it might be a bit of a mess as the two branches will diverge over time. > > > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev
As far as ISD goes, I think that IMP/isd will go to the next release, while IMP/isd2 should go to the following one, e.g. stay in private development. Riccardo, Max, complain if you don't agree.
Le 19/04/13 20:30, Daniel Russel a écrit : > More importantly, a decision needs to be made for each module not in > the main IMP repository (eg isd2, multifit2) whether they will be > maintained against develop or master. That will then tie the people > using the module to one or the other. > > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Barak Raveh <barak.raveh@gmail.com > mailto:barak.raveh@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear all (Max, Riccardo, Natalia - this might be particularly >> important for you) >> >> As we approach the next release, it is *critical* that each person in >> the group will make a clear personal decision whether they want to >> work in the "develop" branch or the "master" branch (= release >> version) of IMP. Note that this has nothing to do with whether you >> are considered an IMP developer or not, it is just a technical >> personal decision. >> >> The *develop* branch is where we work on developing the next release. >> In 6 months, this will be the next IMP. It is less stable (but should >> be much much more stable than it used to as the testing system >> improves more and more). It contains the newest IMP features and >> updates. Also, you enjoy the daily testing system, so you can be >> assured your code will be compatible with the next IMP release. >> >> The *master* branch is the release version - it means you will be >> frozen with a relatively stable version of IMP, with minor bug >> updates from time to time, but will not get new features. All your >> code changes will be kept for you, and will not be easily shared with >> all other developers. Also, you will not enjoy the daily testing >> system (so you won't know if your code is stable for the next release). >> >> Feel free to ask questions or give feedback, this decision is totally >> up to you. You can switch in the middle, but it might be a bit of a >> mess as the two branches will diverge over time. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IMP-dev mailing list >> IMP-dev@salilab.org mailto:IMP-dev@salilab.org >> https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev
On 4/19/13 2:09 PM, Yannick Spill wrote: > As far as ISD goes, I think that IMP/isd will go to the next release, > while IMP/isd2 should go to the following one, e.g. stay in private > development. Riccardo, Max, complain if you don't agree.
I think what Daniel means is are you planning to make isd2 work with the latest (nightly, develop) IMP, or only update it occasionally to work with master? If the latter, then we wouldn't be able to include it in the nightly builds (which build with IMP develop).
Of course, there's no reason isd2 couldn't have a develop *and* a master branch, where the develop branch is expected to work with latest IMP and the master branch with the IMP release. But that's more work for you guys. ;)
Ben
more work but the professional way to go :)
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ben Webb ben@salilab.org wrote:
> On 4/19/13 2:09 PM, Yannick Spill wrote: > >> As far as ISD goes, I think that IMP/isd will go to the next release, >> while IMP/isd2 should go to the following one, e.g. stay in private >> development. Riccardo, Max, complain if you don't agree. >> > > I think what Daniel means is are you planning to make isd2 work with the > latest (nightly, develop) IMP, or only update it occasionally to work with > master? If the latter, then we wouldn't be able to include it in the > nightly builds (which build with IMP develop). > > Of course, there's no reason isd2 couldn't have a develop *and* a master > branch, where the develop branch is expected to work with latest IMP and > the master branch with the IMP release. But that's more work for you guys. > ;) > > Ben > -- > ben@salilab.org http://salilab.org/~ben/ > "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." > - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle > > ______________________________**_________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/**listinfo/imp-devhttps://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev >
that's easy to say of course :P I however agree with you. If we do another release in 6 months.
Le 19/04/13 23:15, Barak Raveh a écrit : > more work but the professional way to go :) > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ben Webb <ben@salilab.org > mailto:ben@salilab.org> wrote: > > On 4/19/13 2:09 PM, Yannick Spill wrote: > > As far as ISD goes, I think that IMP/isd will go to the next > release, > while IMP/isd2 should go to the following one, e.g. stay in > private > development. Riccardo, Max, complain if you don't agree. > > > I think what Daniel means is are you planning to make isd2 work > with the latest (nightly, develop) IMP, or only update it > occasionally to work with master? If the latter, then we wouldn't > be able to include it in the nightly builds (which build with IMP > develop). > > Of course, there's no reason isd2 couldn't have a develop *and* a > master branch, where the develop branch is expected to work with > latest IMP and the master branch with the IMP release. But that's > more work for you guys. ;) > > Ben > -- > ben@salilab.org mailto:ben@salilab.org http://salilab.org/~ben/ > http://salilab.org/%7Eben/ > "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." > - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle > > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org mailto:IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev > > > > > -- > Barak > > > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev
The idea of ISD2 is to have a private playground where we could develop our own projects. In my opinion it has to be maintained private also in the future. As soon as it is convenient (upon publication or request), some of the classes will be "promoted" to ISD.
Also, since ISD2 is a development module by definition, it should work primarily with the development branch.
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Yannick Spill yannick@salilab.org wrote:
> As far as ISD goes, I think that IMP/isd will go to the next release, > while IMP/isd2 should go to the following one, e.g. stay in private > development. Riccardo, Max, complain if you don't agree. > > Le 19/04/13 20:30, Daniel Russel a écrit : > > More importantly, a decision needs to be made for each module not in the > main IMP repository (eg isd2, multifit2) whether they will be maintained > against develop or master. That will then tie the people using the module > to one or the other. > > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Barak Raveh barak.raveh@gmail.com wrote: > > Dear all (Max, Riccardo, Natalia - this might be particularly important > for you) > > As we approach the next release, it is *critical* that each person in > the group will make a clear personal decision whether they want to work in > the "develop" branch or the "master" branch (= release version) of IMP. > Note that this has nothing to do with whether you are considered an IMP > developer or not, it is just a technical personal decision. > > The *develop* branch is where we work on developing the next release. In > 6 months, this will be the next IMP. It is less stable (but should be much > much more stable than it used to as the testing system improves more and > more). It contains the newest IMP features and updates. Also, you enjoy the > daily testing system, so you can be assured your code will be compatible > with the next IMP release. > > The *master* branch is the release version - it means you will be > frozen with a relatively stable version of IMP, with minor bug updates from > time to time, but will not get new features. All your code changes will be > kept for you, and will not be easily shared with all other developers. > Also, you will not enjoy the daily testing system (so you won't know if > your code is stable for the next release). > > Feel free to ask questions or give feedback, this decision is totally up > to you. You can switch in the middle, but it might be a bit of a mess as > the two branches will diverge over time. > > > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing listIMP-dev@salilab.orghttps://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev > >
participants (5)
-
Barak Raveh -
Ben Webb -
Daniel Russel -
Riccardo Pellarin -
Yannick Spill